Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

[Boris Konon]

Hi Boris, just because I write something could be done doesn't mean I think it should be done.

With the exception of IDSS and similar NWS activities I'm perfectly content with the current public/private sector balance. IDSS, which was never a good idea, needs to go away in an era of scare resources.

Correct on "could be" and "should be." I just think in these volatile times, it is easier to misinterpret or misread things on social media. That's why I asked for clarification.

 

[Boris Konon]

I appreciated your comment. But, as to the above, let the city or county pay for the private sector meteorologist.

However, it is absurd to believe NFL and other pro teams cannot afford private sector support.

Same goes for MLB. How many times do we see them playing games with lightning in the area? And then one close strike, and they all run off the field! And then the ground crew comes out and starts laying the tarp? Not a wise thing to do. and they assume just b/c lightning is occurring it is going to rain. This is where a dedicated meteorologist for the team or park would really make a difference.

 

[Jamie H]

While the British Meteorological Office and the French meteorological services have for-profit arms, there is nothing in the NWS enabling legislation which allows them to do so. There would be a collapse in support for the NWS if that were allowed.

I'm confused by your phrase, "much like other companies" The NWS is a government agency of the United States under the U.S. Department of Commerce. Under the U.S. Constitution, there must enabled legislation for the government to do something.

I had the UKMO in mind when asking the question, as that seems like a good approach. It provides free to the public forecasts, videos, information, and even an app, while also providing revenue generating services to the private sector.

With budgets under such scrutiny in US politics, allowing the NWS to offer similar services to the private sector could bring in much needed financial support.

 

[Mike Smith]

I had the UKMO in mind when asking the question, as that seems like a good approach. It provides free to the public forecasts, videos, information, and even an app, while also providing revenue generating services to the private sector.

I don't understand. Why should the NWS provide duplicative services to private sector weather companies who have invested millions in their businesses? The USA is very different from Europe w/r/t the relation between the public and private sectors.

That said, if the safeguards I mentioned were part of it, I'd be for it.

 

[Jamie H]

I don't understand. Why should the NWS provide duplicative services to private sector weather companies who have invested millions in their businesses? The USA is very different from Europe w/r/t the relation between the public and private sectors.

That said, if the safeguards I mentioned were part of it, I'd be for it.

Why *shouldn't* the NWS also provide profit making services, helping to reduce federal spending? What does private sector investment have to do with it? The taxpayer has invested in all the technology and information which the private sector companies utilise for their own profit making services.

 

[Mike Smith]

Why *shouldn't* the NWS also provide profit making services, helping to reduce federal spending? What does private sector investment have to do with it? The taxpayer has invested in all the technology and information which the private sector companies utilise for their own profit making services.

That isn't correct, Jamie. The lightning networks are private sector and the NWS uses that data. The NWS uses private sector weather satellites and private sector data from aircraft in-flight. In a few locations, the NWS uses data from private sector weather networks. But that isn't the main point: Without tax dollars, where will the money to run the NWS and government in general come from if the government displaces businesses? As the U.S. has found out, continue the "all things to all people" long enough and you are $38 TRILLION in debt and you find that you have to raise tariffs and find other sources of revenue because the debt goes up another trillion every 100 days or so.

I'll say it again: Private sector weather companies have been the NWS's biggest advocates. I've testified before Congress, twice, in support of the core mission of the NWS (btw, at my expense). That would turn overnight if the NWS started competing without the safeguards I previously listed. When that occurs, the whole system is at risk of falling apart.

Again: the United States has a Constitution whose purpose is to limit government. The private sector is prime. Perhaps one could argue the merits of that system but it is what it is.

 

[John Farley]

As the U.S. has found out, continue the "all things to all people" long enough and you are $38 TRILLION in debt and you find that you have to raise tariffs and find other sources of revenue because the debt goes up another trillion every 100 days or so.

You keep bringing up debt and deficit, Mike, but the current government is proposing to INCREASE the debt and deficit by making tax cuts, mainly for the wealthiest taxpayers, that exceed even the most optimistic estimates of savings from the various cuts including the NWS. The wealthiest taxpayers pay a tiny fraction of what they paid 50 or 80 years ago. I know this is getting off the topic of NWS cuts but you have mentioned debt and deficit in several posts, and the budget framework that is being pushed by the current administration actually raises the debt and deficit rather than cutting them. As has been the case with every Republican administration going back 50+ years, but this time the cuts are more severe and certainly impacting things we care about a great deal, while being part of an overall plan that does nothing to reduce the deficit or debt.

 

[Jamie H]

That isn't correct, Jamie. The lightning networks are private sector and the NWS uses that data. The NWS uses private sector weather satellites and private sector data from aircraft in-flight. In a few locations, the NWS uses data from private sector weather networks. But that isn't the main point: Without tax dollars, where will the money to run the NWS and government in general come from if the government displaces businesses? As the U.S. has found out, continue the "all things to all people" long enough and you are $38 TRILLION in debt and you find that you have to raise tariffs and find other sources of revenue because the debt goes up another trillion every 100 days or so.

We obviously have different ideological views on the public vs private sector, which isn't worth going round in circles over

But I do want to mention a couple of things: firstly I wan't advocating for the NWS to displace private sector weather providers, rather to exist alongside them. With revenue generating, it would mean lower support from the federal government, which would help reduce the debt you mention.

Secondly, I do find it interesting that in this scenario, the private companies largely benefit from a form of socialism, in that the majority (thanks for correcting me!) of the data comes from the taxpayer and is then used to create products for sale. Surely, if the NWS cannot monetise this data, why should it be freely available for the private sector? Isn't that bad business, regarding the deficit?

I appreciate I may not be making a fully coherent argument, just from afar it doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

[Mike Smith]

Mike, but the current government is proposing to INCREASE the debt and deficit by making tax cuts, mainly for the wealthiest taxpayers,

As we both know, only Congress can change tax rates. I don't know where you are getting your information about an additional tax cut (which I personally oppose because of the deficit) but I haven't seen anything in writing that President Trump has submitted to Congress in this regard.

I do find it interesting that in this scenario, the private companies largely benefit from a form of socialism, in that the majority (thanks for correcting me!) of the data comes from the taxpayer and is then used to create products for sale. Surely, if the NWS cannot monetise this data, why should it be freely available for the private sector?

Jaime, because the taxpayers -- including commercial weather companies and their employees -- are among the taxpayers who pay for the data. If we pay for it, why shouldn't we use it!? The NWS doesn't pay for anything; all of its funds come from taxpayers.

Take, say, the National Parks Service: use fees are paid for certain facilities because the service has to clean up messes and pay for general maintenance. That isn't at all true of meteorological data. The fact I might use a satellite dish to receive exactly the same satellite data streams that NWS HQ uses to send data to its field offices costs the NWS zero. I am 73 years-old and have loved weather since I was 5. If I was a teenager today, I would have a backyard dish. The NWS wouldn't even know about it.

I mowed numerous lawns and, even as a teenager, had to file a tax return and send the IRS a check every year. Why shouldn't I get something out of those hard-earned monies I had to send to the government?

The unfairness would be the NWS using data it didn't pay for to compete again the people who actually paid for the NWS's data.

Does that clear it up?